The triumphal hymn
of Orthodox Pascha says repeatedly, "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling
down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life." Though
certainly not in the New Testament sense, "trampling down death by death"
could be called the theme of both films I'm reviewing this week: For
Roseanna, and Dream with the Fishes. Both "trample"
death by looking it straight in the eye and saying "no! You may win in
the end, but until the end you won't own me."

Though much different films overall, both share a religious
sensitivity that's unusual enough to be refreshing. For
Roseanna unapologetically professes a robust Catholicism
that was more familiar in the days of Frank Capra; Dream with
the Fishes has the most memorable young-man-finding-God
character since Pulp Fiction. Though I'm giving both
seven points on my 10 point scale and I've vowed not to start
using fractions with my points, "Fishes" rates
a very high seven, "Roseanna" very low. Your
mileage may vary, of course (I rather suspect that the majority
of film-goers, especially those of my generation, would take the
opposite view on this).

It's no coincidence that Dream with the Fishes reminded
me of Frank Capra. Where Jimmy Stewart's George Bailey visited
Martinelli's bar on his way to jump off the local bridge, "Fishes'"
central character Terry, a stuffed shirt too shy to have a life
of his own, visits the local liquor store and pays $50 for a lastone wonders if it isn't also his firstbottle of booze. Both characters are met as
they stand on the rail of their respective bridges by highly
unlikely angels looking to save them, though that's not at all
apparent to George Bailey in It's A Wonderful Life or to
either Terry or the audience in "Fishes."

One of the delights of this wonderful first movie by director
Finn Taylor is that you're never sure about the supporting-actor
character, Nick, until almost the end, and some viewersone thinks of Gene Siskel
who referred to him repeatedly as "a 'druggie'" which
misses the point not only of the character but the moviemay never get it. That's
too bad, for Nick is one of the most complicated and interesting
characters, performed stunningly by Brad Hunt who'd never caught
my attention before, that I've met onscreen in a long time. I'd
love to explain this in greater detail, but hesitate out of fear
of ruining the plot for those who like minimal information going
in.

After you've seen it, consider these questions: Does he offer
Terry an overdose of phony sleeping pills to get the watch he
wants, or to save Terry's life? What's the significance of his
comparison of the high school "flame" whom he visits
briefly in the film and his present love? Is his (one) use of
hard drugs in the film, contra Siskel's opinion, attempted
self-medication, an object lesson for Terry, some of each, or
something else? Did he ever intend to kill Terry as promised?

I wasn't sure I really liked this movie until the climax; then
I wanted to cheer. This is a film which, even more than Pulp
Fiction (which it resembles only slightly as alluded to
above; not at all in violence quotient) and Chasing Amy
(which it resembles in the triangle bonding two men and a woman),
I would like to see at least a couple more times. I'm sure the
payoff in insights and understanding would be there. This is
really one worth getting into.